Wednesday 13 February 2008 05.35 EST
First published on Wednesday 13 February 2008 05.35 EST

England's men surrendered the Ashes within 16 months but the women don't intend to give up the prize they recaptured in 2005, after not winning for 42 years, in the one-off Test on Friday.

The aura of the women's Ashes, however, is somewhat difficult to quantify. The players themselves value the series, though there have been just 42 encounters (as opposed to 316 for the men) and seven wins for England, while gaffe-king Prince Phillip summed their trophy up, apparently saying: "It looks like a CDT project gone wrong."

The irony is that a draw will be enough to dust off the "England* retain Ashes" (*women) headline, and guarantee publicity. But for all the teams' protestations that they would have liked to play more Tests, success in the shorter game is what matters. One-dayers are the yardstick as 50 overs is the maximum length across all levels globally, with the exception of Tests themselves when players often have to be coached through the sessions as they unfold by former first-class male players-turned-coaches.

This is why England's two ODI wins to draw the series meant so much. England will count the series draw as a victory, particularly as their coach Mark Dobson quit suddenly before the fourth match which England then won. Prior to the tour the visitors had won only once in Australia but a young side confounded expectations with a boost ahead of the World Cup in New South Wales next year.

Yet the series is hardly gripping Australia and scant media coverage - apart from speculation over why wicketkeeper-batsman Jane Smit also suddenly left the tour after Dobson did - doesn't help. Despite regular terrestrial television coverage for netball and basketball, women's cricket remains off-screen, even though Australia are world champions and the men's game is shown on free-to-air.

The game used to deserve its image problem, but the restrictive braces of two-runs-an-over tedium and powerless play have long since been shed with the advent of ICC involvement, improved athleticism and access to top-class facilities. Trouble is, no admiring glances can be cast if the now-gleaming game remains unseen.

Women's cricket is as ready as it will ever be to be shown off but needs to act fast and properly reimburse its players as some of its top talents are already leaving to play more money-spinning sports. Last month South Africa lost their teenage doyenne, the hard-hitting natural talent Johmari Logtenberg, who quit for golf despite only picking up a club for the first time last year. She figured it was worth a gamble: cricket generally doesn't provide any chips in the first place.

Australia's rising star Ellyse Perry may choose lucrative international football instead. A sitting goldmine, the 17-year-old dazzled around 30,000 spectators at the MCG who caught the tailend of a Twenty20 game with three wickets courtesy of her pace bowling, although they may have missed her genuinely powerful lofted drives, including a straight six.

That game was part of a series of Twenty20 curtain raisers for the men's matches, this one ahead of the Australia-India match. The matches are being scheduled with a view to the proposed 2009 World Twenty20 taking place alongside the men.

Twenty20's Midas fingers are gradually coaxing the women's game out of the shadows and the exposure is working: the MCG match even had a one-hour highlights package on terrestrial television. Fortunately the skills rewarded the faith but the game is still relying on enthusiasm. Eternal studentdom isn't everyone's cup of tea, nor can everyone find a sympathetic employer, like England's Charlotte Edwards who works for Hunts County bats. The future is paying players - Logtenberg didn't want to "play for charity" - but it must happen soon while the game is a secret worth sharing.